Skip navigation

Paz & Gorm & Oliver & some other friends are all perplexed about mathematics. They think it is huge, and so important that all philosophy should just conform itself to Maths. The problem is, while they know that any data or knowledge can at best be an approximation and a simplification and a relative truth, they misteriously miss the relativeness of Maths. And it is a shame, too, that they are perplexed, because Maths is such a simple, solved issue.

For Math is so not true. To see it, we might for example remember that Mathematics is a special case of Logics, which in turn is a special case of Language. Therefore, Mathematics fails in all the cases that Language fails.

Two plus two is not four to someone who does not understand what two means.

3 Comments

  1. I would say that it is a special case of virtuality, not language. And even though we only take part in a tiny sliver of the virtual domain, what makes it immensely important is that this is accessible to us if we make the effort, and if we have mad the effort, we will see that virtuality is objective, and the basis of all communication. Even though reality is transcendent and can never really be known in itself, we can communicate our beliefs and reality-models in the form of virtual structures.

    To a mindless person, one that does not understand even rudimentary virtuality, none of it will seem objective, all will seem fleeting and transient. But leaving mind out of it, you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Objectivity must be measured from the capability of mind, not any old actual mind, impoverished and even deranged as it might be.

  2. Gorm, i believe you lost me.

    Anyway, why can’t it be a special case of BOTH language and “virtuality”?

    If we only take part in a tiny sliver of the virtual domain, what reason do we have to care about the rest of it? Or even believe it to exist at all?

    If we base communication on objectivity, this would (on thesis) work. But on the other hand, communication without objectivity can also be proven to work. Why should we chose one over the other? Which is the criteria?

  3. That Math is a subclass of language could lead to a much better understanding of Math itself. Nevertheless, Math-oriented people tend to dislike the theory of language, so, seeing as to who this series is meant to, i will not dwell too much on language. After all, one of the things you learn while you study language is that more than one way to speak about something can be useful. This opening is mostly tongue-in-cheek, just a quickstart to the discussion…


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] certain kind of problems, and if you (politically) elect those problems as the most important, then Maths becomes the tits. That later Newton, through his own very complex prejudices, equated Alchemy with Calculus, is just […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: